It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Revolution II: Which is more important - Free Speech or Bear Arms?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
He who bears arms has free speech.

Wupy




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
If this has already been said,,,I apologize. I didn't read the whole thread, but what I read got me stirring......

The 2nd amendment is more important. It should have been the 1st amendment. Let me explain before you all tear me apart. Without the right to bear arms....there is no bill of rights. If the citizens of this country can not defend themselves from the GOVT. Then what is keeping the GOVT. from taking control of the citizens. And when they do that, the rest of the Bill of Rights....is nothing more than a historic piece of toilet paper!!

The Bill of Rights state that these rights come from our "CREATOR". Whether that is God or someone else...doesn't matter. What this states is that man (human kind), is capable of controlling itself and governing itself. The elected body of GOVT is to do the peoples will....(Which is something sorely lacking these days!!) Man choses his Representatives to serve HIS best interests. (Again, not happening) Without the Right to Bear Arms......There is nothing to stop the GOVT from enslaving it's citizens. Without the right to bear arms there is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! There is no nothing. Only an armed citizenry can keep the GOVT in check. And eventhough we have the right to bear arms...the GOVT is out of control......

We have Judges legislating from the bench...making or breaking laws. Last I checked it was Congress who was (Funny how past tense fits here) the one to make the laws of this country. As badb as this is today, just imagine what it would be like if we didn;t have the second amendment. The judiciary would be no better than a common dictator.

Do I believe every American citizen should have free and total access to guns....NO!!! Convivted criminals should not!! But the average law abiding citizen should be able to own whatever firearm he/she chooses, without any GOVT interferance. What weapons I own or you own...is no business of the GOVT. What they don't know "Can hurt them"...That is what keeps them from controling us. As I see it...our INALIENABLE RIGHTS, are slowly being taken away from us.

Am I calling for another civil war...NO!!!!! We have the right to vote the people we want in and out of power. Violence is always the last resort. But if the threat of violence is taken away, then there is no hope for the people. We then, are nothing more than slaves to the GOVT.

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I SEE,,,, This country is on a path to it's 2nd civil war. You have the extreme left and the extreme right. And none of them are willing to look towards the middle. No one in the GOVT is willing to comprimise. Without the Right to Bare Arms the average citizen is caught in the middle, with no where to go. But at least with that right, they can defend themselves and their families. Do I believe this scenerio is coming...YES, Do I want it NO!!!!!! It's time to get rid of partisan politics and work Together....If the people voted into office don't want to do this, then it is time to remove them. And if they are not willing to go then it is the citizens Right to Bear Arms that will make them go. And NO, I don't want it to come to this...but if our vote is ignored, Then this is the only way for us to be heard!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
To all those who have said force of small arms can't match the governments weapons, I have two words for you: Virginia Sniper.

One or two men (I think Malvo was a patsie by the way), with a Bushmaster rifle, paralyzed three states for an extended period of time. Imagine what 100 trained snipers could do...

There are plenty of highly trained, pissed off, well armed men and women in America who disagree with what their government is doing. If they make the difficult decision, to take up arms against their government, there will be no stopping them.

The government should learn a little healthy respect. It's getting close to the threshold for a number of groups/individuals. Once that imaginary line is crossed, all hell will break loose. The government can drop nukes on American cities if they want, they can release smallpox or soak the air with Sarin, but they can't kill the American spirit. That's like fighting smoke.

They have trapped most of it, bottled it up...

But pressure is building.

Remember this: All it takes is one highly trained individual to bring a nation to its knees.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

One or two men (I think Malvo was a patsie by the way), with a Bushmaster rifle, paralyzed three states for an extended period of time. Imagine what 100 trained snipers could do...

WyrdeOne, I like the way you're thinking there, but don't you think that if an _organized_ team of snipers tried to muck things up, that the military would bring out a bigger force to track those insurgents down?

If there were an organized group with Bushmasters, they could hide in the woods and so forth (Americans are the best riflemen in the world) as they did back in the American revolution but with echolocation and muzzleflashes, they'd be quickly crushed by mortars, napalm, global-hawks, etc. Do you really think that Americans with rifles can change their government? How could this happen based on the advanced gear the military would bring to bear on them? Not only that but if the Pentagon had ANY reason to go full-tilt-military here on US soil, it would begin a very dark period for EVERY American citizen, not just the riflemen of the insurgency.

I still think that non-violent acts are the only way to truly change an empire as Ghandi proved. That scene in the movie where all those people keep walking up and getting bashed with batons and then getting up and walking right back up to the gate... That's power.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
WyrdeOne, I like the way you're thinking there, but don't you think that if an _organized_ team of snipers tried to muck things up, that the military would bring out a bigger force to track those insurgents down?


The Government cant even catch the killer of a Federal Judges family. How long did it take them to catch the Unibomber? BTK killer? Gacy killed like 33 boys, Atlanta Child killer got a bunch too... The Govt. still depends alot on tips. In a state of widespread civil unrest, tips would be available considerably lesser numbers.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
But they caught Saddam...how odd is that??

They took the nation of Iraq in 2 weeks. I doubt they could take Miami in two weeks or two months.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
WyrdeOne, I like they way youre thinking too, but...

going against some people pumping gas is alot different that going against the US military. dont kid yourself, they would go full force & stop that very quickly! thats where the issue hets tricky. would the common people side with the government for protecting them from "terrorism" or with the militia that tired to end the oppression? would it cause a polarized reaction that ignited a civil war?

very touchy issue...



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
WyrdeOne, I like the way you're thinking there, but don't you think that if an _organized_ team of snipers tried to muck things up, that the military would bring out a bigger force to track those insurgents down?


I doubt the revolution will be organized. Certainly not televised.
The military is ill equipped to handle threats of this nature. They simply don't have the manpower or the will to police the entire continental US. They would be forced into a reactive posture, combined with investigative work to uncover the command structure (assuming there was one). To be clear, I'm certainly not advocating this method, I much prefer your idea of work and tax strikes; you're absolutely right, it does work in prison.


Originally posted by smallpeeps
If there were an organized group with Bushmasters, they could hide in the woods and so forth (Americans are the best riflemen in the world) as they did back in the American revolution but with echolocation and muzzleflashes, they'd be quickly crushed by mortars, napalm, global-hawks, etc. Do you really think that Americans with rifles can change their government? How could this happen based on the advanced gear the military would bring to bear on them? Not only that but if the Pentagon had ANY reason to go full-tilt-military here on US soil, it would begin a very dark period for EVERY American citizen, not just the riflemen of the insurgency.


It would be suicide to engage the US army on open ground, or even in a jungle or deciduous forest. The real potential for damage and dismay would be in urban and semi-rural settings.

Chicago just had a spate of shootings from rooftops not too long ago, as it turns out, there were gang members protecting their turf with high powered rifles and spotters, from atop the tenaments on the S. Side.

Noise and flash are easily eliminated with any number of pre-fab or improvised silencers and flash suppresors. I'd love to be in the war room where some US general makes the decision to call down an air strike on a populated area, with napalm no less.
It would be a PR nightmare. They would be forced to rely heavily on surveilance and man-on-the-ground tactics, which could be matched or defeated in any number of creative ways.

You're right, no loosely organized band of snipers could hope to hold off the entire US military in a stand up fight, but of course, the rules of engagement are written by the aggressors. In this case, like I said, the military would be forced into a reactive posture.

You're also right when you say it would be a dark time. It would really drive home the severity of the situation. It might even make people wonder what the hell those snipers were so upset about. Or, it might increase support for overwhelming police/military/governmental control and command of the states. I can see it going both ways.


Originally posted by smallpeeps
I still think that non-violent acts are the only way to truly change an empire as Ghandi proved. That scene in the movie where all those people keep walking up and getting bashed with batons and then getting up and walking right back up to the gate... That's power.


Well, you're right and you're wrong. Every man has a duty to stay alive, and Ghandi didn't quite accomplish that. He did motivate a nation, but now is a different time. Look at Seattle. There we see a group of people with serious grievances being hated and spurned by the very citizens they were protesting FOR! It backfired, big time. I imagine, like I said before, it could go either way. I hope it will never come to snipers, but I think we're fast approaching, and in fact may have already crossed that threshold.

I don't know if you know this, but the Special Forces have a serious grievance with their commanders. They don't feel good about their job, they feel misused and abused by their 'betters.' A lot of good men have died protecting profits that weren't their own and liberating people who only want to be left alone. They're sick of it, and like I said, pressure is building.

The corporate goons wouldn't know what to do with napalm. They need soldiers to carry our their orders otherwise the whole system breaks down. In this case we're talking about, I'm extremely suspect as to the willingness of soldiers to kill their own, especially given the current situation with politics in this country.

It would be uncharted territory for America, and it could either free us from tyranny, strengthen the current tyrants, or usher in new ones. It really is a toss up.

I actually thought, initially, that 9/11 was a military coup, and that we would be seeing some change in the country. Maybe we are, and the media is simply lying about everything. It really wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time I wouldn't stake my reputation on that theory. Like usual, I'm just going to wait and see what develops...



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
But they caught Saddam...how odd is that??

They took the nation of Iraq in 2 weeks. I doubt they could take Miami in two weeks or two months.


We do not have the military power to control an uprising public. Plus most local military consists of Police & national guard, and there is no guarantee they take up arms against their families & friends in their communities.

If all the public has is speech, there is no real threat and you will be dispersed.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Yes, both equally important, I agree with the previous posts.

Those who do not wish to bear arms, well that is all fine and dandy, but to those who wish it, they should be able to bear arms all the same.

-wD



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Free speech, or right to bear arms... Man that's a no brainer.
ONE CREATES THE OTHER, the right to bear arms insures our right to free speech, and our right to dissolve a government which no longer acts in the interests of the governed. In the system of checks and balances set up by our forefathers, the right to bear arms was the only check and balance given to the citizenry, and now, we are rapidly loosing both.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
twitchy
The 2nd ammendment wasn't the only check. Citizens used to be able to vote their representatives out of office if the needs of the public weren't being met. Of course now that the integrity of the vote has been compromised, we have lost that power.

That was a critical threshold in my opinion. If the democratic avenues are blocked, where are people supposed to turn?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
We lost the electoral system as soon as they developed the two party system, despite ooposition from the likes of George Washington himself, the political parties were created to insure that the Republic didn't loose centralized power through democratic principles. The Industrial Revolution was the nail in the coffin, and the recent electronic voting systems were the funeral of American Democracy. Our right to bear arms and our right to free speech is all that's left. Those rights are dwindling, and the very same families and coporations that we fought in the 40's have reclaimed power in the western world. Perhaps we as Americans should start thinking in terms of appealing to international entities, appealing to them for oversight of our electoral process (which Bush abolished in 2000 by the way) and intervention on behalf of the citizenry. Yes, it is really that far gone, and this may the last window of opportunity for us to change the system. And before you call me a paranoid liberal, answer yourself a simple question... Do you think the citizens of 1930's Germany were a bunch of paranoid liberals? They didn't do anything, even when the news of the real perpetrators of the Riechstag burning and the Polish Terrorists were revealed, they did nothing. It's not too late for us to do something, but we won't and they know we won't, because we are too busy bickering and arguing about Theresa Kerry and abortion, etc. Our right to bear arms and our rights of free speech are supposed to keep private interests like coporations from controlling our government. It's the very same people who gave rise to German Facism, the same money and names sits, right now, in the white house and legislature creating policy and making wars. Operation Paperclip was a smashing success. Germany didn't loose WWII, they refinanced, relocated, and rose to power though the illusion of western democratic principle.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

with napalm no less.

I threw that in for effect. Glad it got a laugh. :^)

You're right, it does seem likely that an American insurgence like that would happen in the cities and not in the country. I could see how snipers/insurgents would be able to "do the Iraqi thing" and muck up the military's advantages but they'd have to have some kind of public support so as to have buildings to hide in.

I'd also suggest that whomever controls the media megaphone would have a major advatage. If you could somehow seize a television station it'd be easier to sway public opinion. I mean look at how many people have bought the "official" story of 9/11. These same Americans would probably buy any story regarding insurgents. I mean if CNN labels the insurgents as terrorists then the video feeds are going to polarize the couch-sitting Americans against them. As soon as they see a few marines/soldiers getting killed, I tend to believe that many Americans would also want to kill the insurgents. Some people will defend the flag until the day they die regardless of what America becomes.

After reading your response I have to say I'm seeing your point. I also do admit it would be very tough to organize Americans to have a sort of non-violent Ghandi-style protest. I men things would have to get pretty bad in America for anybody to be that determined. Here's hoping America never gets as bad as colonial India!



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
So what, they are equaly valid politically and by law.

Poltically, yes, legally, no. The Dec has no legal standing, at least as far as I understand it.

If you say the words in the Dec. of Ind. cannot justify actions today what are we saying? America is dead?

Infact I did say that they could be used to justify it. However, the Declaration talks about it being the responsibility of free men to rise up against tyranny, even if it requires military action. Since there is no tyranny, there is no need.

[qyuote]We are debating about the utilization of our rights in a second revolution and which one will play more importance, the right to bear arms or the right to free speech.
Any attempt at military revolution will be quashed. Thus, the right to bear arms in well organized militias will be meaningless in any successful revolution. The right to speech and assembly will also generally be useless as a tool to overthrow the government and constitution or to 'restor the constitution by overthrowing the government'. This is because in order to effect revolution, rather than mere reform or change, it woudl require that something like a super majority of the population was vehemntly in favour of revolution against the status quo and against reform. This would create enough political pressure and massed rallies, ala the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, to pressure the government and military to 'dissolve'. Anything short of that is not going to work, not working will lead to frustration, frustration will lead to desparation, and that will lead to militancy, which will be crushed propably even before it evolves into outright rebellion.


We need a strategic plan to bring our goverment back into accountability to the people for it's actions abroad and internationally, for it's relationships to corporations and the practices they allow corporations to ensue be it in the national interest of the people or not.

So because you disagree with the democratically elected government you call for military revolution, from your home in china nonetheless. You've even alluded to rounding up everyone that disagreed into camps and exterminating them. Those are tyrannical actions.


I doubt they could take Miami in two weeks or two months

Why? The people of miami spend their time clubbing and sunbathing, not toiling in desert fields and struggling against other militias and preparing for the end of the world. Besides, 'constitutionalist' support and militias are not in the cities, they are in the countryside, in the back waters.

wyrdeone
One or two men (I think Malvo was a patsie by the way), with a Bushmaster rifle, paralyzed three states for an extended period of time. Imagine what 100 trained snipers could do...

Be serious. The general public was fearful for a period of time and the criminals were caught. The government and military was not hampered by those murderers, and indeed the attmpts to stop them were police actions, not military ones.

Also, everyone shoudl consider the militias in the center and north of the US. Ruby Ridge, Waco, they were all militants who figured they stood a chance. The Waco wackos were annihilated by a bureau, not a military nor even the police. True enough, they were well armed. But they defeated them with bullets and smoke grenades. Now imagine Sable Rounds and VX grenades launched from Bradley, Tanks, and helicopters coordinated by orbital satellites and supported by stealh ships and special forces.
Forget it. The iraqi militias can't even defeat these people in convetional warfar. A Civil War in the US will not be fought with conventional means, especially if the government is as 'evil' as some are pretending. I doubt most people want Kansas City to become like al-Falluja, especially not what conspiracists claim 'really' happened at al-Falluja.
Hell, those jihadis have internationa support and global funding too. THe militias in the US buy weapons at gun shows and ebay. Any 'resistance' will not stand a chance.

There are plenty of highly trained, pissed off, well armed men and women in America who disagree with what their government is doing

And they will be exterminated like vermin, literally.

I believe the U.S. military will have factions that will revolt with the massess.

Extraordinarilly unlikely. If moderately uncontrolled National Guards units can fire upon students in Ohio, the actual army will gladly take down murerous rebellious criminals commiting acts of sabotage and assasinations.

I doubt the revolution will be organized. Certainly not televised

But we may be able to get it with pepsi or coke!


kinja
How long did it take them to catch the Unibomber? BTK killer? Gacy killed like 33 boys, Atlanta Child killer got a bunch too

And how long did the people at Waco last when the government chose to actually get them out?
Criminals like the people mentioned cannot create revolutions. Agitators, like Sam Adams,drummed up support for the American Revolution, but actual armies had to defeat one another in the field in order to throw out the brittish.





posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It is clearly the right to bear arms.

As they say, might makes right.

The 2nd amendment is THE most important right that we in this nation have. It should be every persons personal duty to become reasonably trained with firearms.

It is this right that protects the others.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I think the right to bear arms is 10000X more important then the freedom of speech.

Especially in the year 2005 when weapons are so powerful that those without weapons stand no real chance.

I think they both should be fought for.

The US Government already has unconstitutional gun laws. The machine gun ban and I think some state's dont allow concealed weapons permits. And they regulate explosives and other "destructive devices".

Also somehow it is illegal to carry your gun in public in the open.

And you need a permit to own destructive device's like grenade launchers and mine's.


I think the revolution should of already began. I think instead of gun law's they should try and stiffle the weapons market to not get out of control. Like not making it illegal, just not making serious stuff available. Like not being able to buy guided missiles at Walmart. Automatic rifle's we can handle. People arming themselves with missiles, artillery and explosives might get out of hand.

It would probably bring a boom in anti missile defense and bomb sniffing technologies though. Every sane person would want to make sure everything was in check and balance.

Thats what I think should happen. Besides I want to buy a fully automatic machine gun and not have to pay 500$ a year in taxes. And I want a m203 grenade launcher and not have to pay an additional 500$ + 500$ per grenade. That is excessive. Not to mention unconstitutional.


And how do I know the US govt. hasnt been infiltrated in the highest echelons and is in cahoots with foreign nations to make a mockery out of the US and its core beleifs. To disarm the public and take total control. I dont. I need to be able to defend myself or given the chance to.

How do I know if a street thug with a fully automatic machine gun isnt going to try murdering me and my family. I need to match firepower.

And at the very least to defend my home from theft or myself from bodily harm by another person.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
As far as modern weaponry is concerned, even the most advanced attack helicopter in the world is no match to a tater-gun loaded with dog chains.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
As far as modern weaponry is concerned, even the most advanced attack helicopter in the world is no match to a tater-gun loaded with dog chains.


The ingenuity of Americans cannot be underestimated. We don't have tanks and helicopters but we can create some crazy contraptions. We definately are not outnumbered when it comes to kicking the government's behind. When it comes to arms that's not such a big question.

The biggest thing they have against us is propaganda and psychological warfare. Evidence of this is clear and it is a present danger.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Free speech is important, but if you take away the guns...well, lets just say an armed public will always have a voice.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join